The Attorney General
1722
   |
Posted - 2014.01.06 15:37:00 -
[1] - Quote
Replying to post #3
1. I don't think that it should take more than one player to destroy a tank. I do think it should take more than one to do it quickly. The amount of time and firepower is something that needs to be debated.
Quote:A dedicated Anti-vehicle player sacrifices his anti-infantry capacity for the ability to destroy vehicles. His fit is ONLY useful against vehicles, and by definition should be effective ONLY against vehicles.
Unless we are talking about logis exclusively, an AV player does not sacrifice his anti infantry role, he merely minimizes it. An SMG is still a potent weapon for fending off foes, and depending on the vehicle being attacked, you might have fluxes as well. Not helpless, just not optimal. The same trade happens in tanks. In order to pop other tanks, you trade away infantry effectiveness. I would posit that everyone can agree that the blaster turret is the best for taking out infantry. It is horribly outclassed in tank v tank fighting. By running a blaster, you are making yourself vulnerable to a specific counter, just as an AV player makes themselves most vulnerable to other infantry rolling up on them.
I need to get more baked before I deal with more of this.
Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
|
The Attorney General
1723
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 17:14:00 -
[2] - Quote
Justicar Karnellia wrote:
The rest of what you mention is debatable, but this is a forum so we can debate. :)
I know I can hold my own with my submachinegun - I have proficiency V on it and even extra reload speed, and if the range is right - I can defend myself , but I wouldn't class myself as anti-infantry, especially in my swarm fit - I fit two damage mods so my shields are even less than my standard build, but of course I'm not here to argue fits.
This is by design. Running AV is meant to be a trade off between how effective you can be versus either class. It applies to both vehicles and infantry.
This, to me also touches on the larger meta that seems to be in play, either by accident or design(hopefully design IMO), which is that the heavy suit is the best AV suit now for conventional AV and the light frames for RE play. This increases diversity because both of those suits have distinct benefits and drawbacks to their use. They also have different places to be applied.
Is it an adjustment? Sure, and I am sure that people in medium frames are pissed about losing effectiveness, but I think it is better for long term game health. Anything that makes the light and heavy frames more important is good for the overall game.
Justicar Karnellia wrote:
It's interesting that you mention blaster tanks vs other tanks - I admit when I roamed around in my blaster tank, I died to other blaster tanks (who were just better than me) and railgun tanks, who just really destroyed me. I feel that the tank vs tank part of the implementation does seem more or less balanced - which is the problem when you go to balance an asset because of it's effect on infantry - how do you balance it without having a knock-on effect and upsetting the balance that was achieved for the tank vs tank part. I feel the solution will come less with touching at tank mechanics - even thought modules could be tweaked, but most of it will be on the infantry side with some doses of improved map design.
Right now, the blaster turret is not going to win verus missiles or a railgun most of the time. Making them worse at that role isn't the worse thing in the world because it isn't what it is for. Accuracy nerfs wouldn't really impact tank v tank, but would alter the tank vs infantry balance.
P.S. tanks are far from balanced, there is still a lot to be done on that front.
Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
|